elimination and cards

I agree with Joca, at least in Capital games. There are too many risky attacks that sometimes end with a player with 4 cards and no troops in his cap (and I am just talking of those cases where he succeed killing his target).

Would it be possible to add as an option come back to the old rule in Cap Games?

Well, going for a 4 card turn in isnt that risky - more than 70% chance, just don't go for too many of them in a row and you'll be fine.

I've seen ppl go for a double turn in at 6 cards - the probability of that is much smaller, and this problem wont be gone by changing this rule back.


The problem you get if you make an option to play with or without the 1959 rule is that you think its on, but it really isnt, causeing ppl to go for a 4 card turn in, have the right cards, but cant turn in because the rule was off.


You will always have suicidal moves, especially in random live games, changing this back won't change that.

Still think that it was different with old one. I mean less "suicidal" moves. And forgot to mention one thing. Newbies are not the only one who are making those kind of moves. Have seen a lot of high ranked players who would take that kind of risk, even though bonus is still low/ chances for set are small. Umm...that's fine, it's not in our nature to surrender when we see our almost certain downfall. When you calculate 5 cards, you exactly know that there would be a set.
Also think it would be a good for beginners, who are willing to take all kind of risk's. They will focus it more on their strategy(building up cap, making their paths clear), than on the cards.

The name of the game is risk.

I agree that the game would be better with less risk and luck and more strategy but you'd have to change more than this rule to fix it.

@Joca - Probably I am one taking that kind of risk with the newer rule

The reason it's clear. When you are in a capital game with 7 or 8 players you don't have so many chance of winning, since when you can go for it then you must go. If you wait one turn it will be too late, you will be dead.
In that kind of games once you was dead holding 5 cards, now you are dead holding 4. It's easier to run the map and kill'em all since we have more games suddenly ending.

So I can understand Joca feelings, he probably miss some epic battles occurred with the old D12 rule and his point is very interesting for me.

In the opposite side I think the new rule works perfectly in a deathmatch game with 4 or 5 players. The new rule helps these games to not stalemate that is also a very important point.

Since I don't know what is better, the older or the newer. By the way if we are discussing to make an option... Well, I agree to put that option.

What Matty said about don't knowing if the option is set on or off it's a problem about every other option. You can join a game and then you realize that is fog or same time, or adjacent or fixed.

The only problem for me is to make an option that is clear and understandable to all the players. You can't ask to them if they want to play with 1959 or 1963 rule? Because they don't know what we are talking about.

Perhaps may be in this way, I guess it's pretty clear:
TURN-IN AFTER A KILL:
- Always allowed
- Only with 5+ cards

P.S. - I know Matty is doing a great job remaking the create-game interface. I can't wait to see it finished, but it can be the right time to plan some adds or modifications on game options.

"The name of the game is risk." Knew that someone will post this one, but you Vex lol.

I'am aware the the site's staff is preoccupied and that there's lot of job beside this proposal. If it's not possible at the moment, i would just like to put in on the list "what-to-do-in-some-far-away-future", still i know at least 5 more members ( beside The_Bishop and MuzuaneAskari)who would like to see old-new rule in the game.

Also think that Bish's suggestion how to make this option understandable to a common player is great.

No, it is not the same as other options - maybe sometimes with adjacent reinforcement vs others.
Same time is only a problem before you join a game, not once its started.
Once I open a game I see immedeately that its a fog capital game, or that its increasing or fixed.
It's very easy to miss whether its adjacent or not, or whether its 1959 or 1963.

Apart from that, the new rule makes games less predictable.
With the old rule, you were always sure: oh, now noone will attack me, as they cant turn in anyways, lets just sit back and relax.
Now you just dont know - true, they have only 70% chance of turing in (enough to try it), but 3 times consecutive 70% makes alot less, so will they try nonetheless, or will they not.
It makes the game alot complexer to guess what will happen, and I like that.

And apart from that, the new rule makes more sense.
If I have a one card, a wild card, and someone else has two cards, I want to kill him, because then I can turn in.
Not being able to turn in then doesnt make sense at all (at least not to me).

I don't know if the problem is more about the new rule or the new players!
It's hard to play a decent game in the last period. Once trying an impossible shot and ruining the game was a very bad behavior, now is such a normal thing.
Really another thread would be needed for this topic.

By the way I am pretty fine with the new rule. But if the name of the game is Risk... well, Risk is usually played that you need 5+ cards in order to turn in.
That is not the old rule, because it means you need 8+ cards in order to turn in twice. You can check it on wikipedia. This also makes sense.

Since I'm not proposing nothing here, I just like to discuss this topic and know players opinion. Well, I think Joca is an interesting one because I trust him as a player. Then if we really need to make that option, I beg you to do it in the right way: 5+ cards in the strict sense (not the old rule).

I also think we should to try to find a solution to this issue (and I must admit my results with these new rule, especially in Cap Games, are much better than before but I am not enjoying so much).

I don't know if some people are using Capped cards to avoid in same game these risky attacks, but I think that both facts are related.

From what I understand, you want the player only to be able to turn in if he has five cards in his hand? Because I have the feeling I then have to make clear what this topic especially was about:

For as long as I have known, this website has always allowed you to turn in a set as long as you have it in your hand at the beginning of the turn. Whether that's three or five.

This thread however was about the turning in after you have killed somebody. The "old" rule on D12 only allowed you to turn in if you had five or more cards after this, the "new" rule allows you to turn in every set you have.

Alright then, on to my opinion on this subject. I really think this is something that should not be taken away. Apart from the suicide issues you seem to be encountering, I am afraid that certain games will easier reach a stalemate if it is not worth killing someone with two or three cards because you won't reach five in your hand. Killing someone that has five cards with you having two is now worth it, because the chances on a double turn in with seven cards are quite high. With the "old" rule back in place, this will not be worth it anymore, because you will only get one turn in. This can mean a huge difference in for example increasing games.

I want to make one thing very clear: I do NOT want this to be another option. I am slowly getting sick of people always calling for adding an option. Creating a game can already be difficult enough, thinking we will also get another dice mode and possibly team games. This is such an essential part of the game rules, it should be made very clear what the rules are and they should also not change back and forth every year.

This is not the problem in how many sets you get to turn in ...it is when.

In this "New" rule player "A" has one card and player "B" has two cards....player "A" trys to kill player "B" in hopes to get three tradable cards...dumb. I have had this happen to me and that is not even close to the rules of the game.

How about if you get five cards and now have to trade-in or get to ...you can trade-in all sets after you kill some-one...not try to kill some-one in hopes that you get a set after you kill some-one?...Wait was that not the "Old" way?

Hate to harp on this issue...but no response does not answer the question about the cards...

MuzuaneAskari even said he is does not enjoy it as much...What about useing the old rule just for caps? 

  One of the rules is that you should play to win and do not do a "suicidal" run, I have had only one game out of 15-20 that someone did not do a "suicidal" run...

It is kind of funny the ones against the old rule change to the new one is... the ones that play games on this site a lot more than the ones that do not, want it changed back. Plus we are the ones that play more cap games...mmm...

Then only cure I see is two fold:

A: Change it back to "Old Rule" just for cap games

or

B: The members that do try to enjoy Cap games, start playing deathmatches and forget about playing Cap Games.

Both will have a different out-come for me, as how I enjoy this site...a lot or none... and I just do maps.

So because ppl are dumb you should change the rules?
That doesn't sound like a good reason to me.

And you might or might not know, but Fendi (and other admins) gets lots of questions about things that are absolutely clear. So if both trade in options will be added even more questions will be made, and even more ppl will make dumb moves.



The main reason you see so much more 'suicidal' moves is because ppl are alot better than 2 years ago. You cannot afford to wait until you have 90% chance of winning, especially in cap games. If you have 70% chance you should go for it, as otherwise someone else will.

 because ppl are alot better than 2 years ago.....LOL
How fast are the games now? Over by the third turn! I can not even get a game that goes into the forth turn!

The reason we changed it is because of dumb players or was it that the games took to long? I just want it back for caps...keep your short deathmatches...give me skilled games ...not lucky games, everyday of the week.

How could you have more "suicidal" moves if the ppl are a lot better?...LOL By that reasoning I should always do it so I would be a better player...come on Matty that makes no "cents"...not even a pennie.(yes I speelleed it wrong)

You did give me a good laugh though!

I truly feel that the only way to control that is to have it password protected or use a minimum points options to keep the rooks out. Any type of game is subject to bad strategy when all players can join. This is no different.